Today is the sad anniversary of perhaps Britain’s worst ever military defeat. This should be a day for quiet reflection on what might have been (not to mention sadness that some of our countrymen felt it was right to rise against their own people in bloody rebellion).
However, it has been brought to my attention that certain despicable fifth-columnists among us seek to celebrate this terrible defeat. I hope you’ll join with me in condemning their treachery.
Steady on old boy. There were no Americans until there was an American country. That came rather after the defeat of George III’s Hessians.
Those being led gy G. Washington were therefore Britons in rebellion against the Crown and thus once again we Brits beat the Germans at their national game, thus making it three times in total.
After all, we generally seem to think that Britons in rebeliion against the Crown (and winning)in the 1640s was a good idea don’t we?
A curse on those roundheads.
Tim’s right. This is the anniversary of the British Revolution. Britain is unusual in having had its revolution overseas — that’s one of the dangers of having a huge empire, I suppose. So the Monarchy lost, but were nonetheless able to stay in power.
I’m really surprised to see you on the side of the Monarchists, John.
Well, I think it reminds us that failure is an option and that it needn’t be so bad if the terrorists win. it also reminds us that French foreign policy can have some interesting consequences.
"There were no Americans until there was an American country. That came rather after the defeat of George III’s Hessians."
From what I read, by the time the conflict was in its later stages, most of the combatants on bith sides were Americans.
Logically, the Patriots were in rebellion against Parliament. Yet our Yankee cousins will keep claimig that they were rebelling agin King George. Why is that?
The monarch was far more in charge in them days than he or she is now. Parliament really did answer to the King, albeit with all the usual weird British constitutional I’m-in-charge-no-we’re-in-charge caveats. I think it makes as much sense to say they were rebelling against the King as against Parliament. And, of course, whiel they were only rebelling against a particular Parliament, they were rebelling against the very idea of kingship.
It’s true that George III wanted to mix some ruling into his reigning, but not at the level of changes in duties and such. "No taxation without representation" is about Parliament, not about King. I think we’re in the world of SPIN.
I think the point is that they were rebelling against the British constitution as a whole. That’s why they had to come up with another one eventually.
"And, of course, whiel they were only rebelling against a particular Parliament, they were rebelling against the very idea of kingship."
Wasn’t George Washington offered the chance to become King after the revolution?
Two things I know about the American "revolution". Correct me if I’m wrong.
1) The Boston Tea Party: the duty on tea imports had been REDUCED. The response was by the smugglers, who saw that their income was going to take a big hit.
2) A major incentive to the Revolutionaries was that Parliament intended to honour its treaties with the Indians and prohibit further westward expansion by the settlers. This would have hit land-speculators particularly hard, including Washington G.
Don’t know about 1) but I believe 2) is correct. The interesting thing is had they not have done so, states like Virgina and Pennsylvania might well have expanded to the extent that they could have seceded from Britain as countries in their own right.
The only reason Norm is celebrating that festival of irrelevance and smugness is to wind up lefties. He thinks we’re all sooooo anti-American. He does, you know.
On a personal level, may I say how pleased I am to remember the defeat of a great imperial power by an under-armed yet determined populace. Viva la resistance.
Has anyone ever attempted a Norman Geras parody? Apart from himself, of course. Could this be a job for Oliver Kampf?
Ooh, the salubrious Mr Kampf. I haven’t updated that for months, perhaps a new effort should be in the offing. Normblog doesn’t have the exaggerated mannerisms of Mr Kamm, but it’s probably worth a try.
Instapundit says your wrong Lenin. All right-thinking people preferred the rule of Kings.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3395977/
> festival of irrelevance and smugness
The first major blow against the largest empire in history is irrelevant? Blimey. Just what is relevant?
Dearieme,
Yes, I know it’s spin, and didn’t say it wasn’t. What I am suggesting is that, in retrospect, considering that the USA ended up with a parliament of sorts but no monarch, it’s perfectly sensible spin to suggest that the thing against which they rebelled is the same as the thing they got rid of, since that was the actual effect of the rebellion.
But anyway, they have rights now and we don’t, so I can see why they’d celebrate.
They have an elected monarch and we have a crowned republic. The most impressive part of their deal is the Constitution, save that the SUPREME COURT JUSTICES RESERVE THE RIGHT TO IGNORE IT WHENEVER THEY FEEL LIKE IT.
DM – I think you mistyped "uphold" as "ignore" above.
Dearieme,
I agree with you absolutely.
John,
Point out the clause in the Constitution that guarantees a right to privacy, and you’ll have a point.
The American rebellion was principally an anti-Parliamentary rebellion. It had been established since the late 17th century that the monarch could not levy taxes without Parliamentary consent. George III and Parliament were united in their belief that Parliament was entitled to impose taxation on the American colonies.
The modern American political system has, paradoxically, retained many features of 18th century British political life.
The modern American political system has, paradoxically, retained many features of 18th century British political life.
Such as delegating the administration of its colonies to corrupt private monopolies.